Physician Practices in the Management of Myocardial Injury after Non-Cardiac Surgery: A Survey Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To describe how physicians manage patients with myocardial injury (i.e., a troponin elevation of presumed ischemic origin) after non-cardiac surgery (MINS). Methods: Web-based survey to physicians distributed between December 2020 and September 2021, including a case scenario of asymptomatic MINS. Results: Of 103 respondents, 94% were practicing in Canada and 65% were general internists. 97% of respondents would order an ECG; following a normal ECG, 46% of would order an echocardiogram; following a normal echocardiogram, 42% would order myocardial perfusion imaging. Of the respondents, 91% and 90% would initiate ASA and a statin, respectively; 24%, 21%, and 7% would initiate an ACE inhibitor, a beta-blocker, and dabigatran, respectively. Most participants indicated that outpatient follow-up with a medicine specialist within 1–2 months (90%) and 1 year (68%) was appropriate. Conclusion: Respondents generally agreed that ASA and statins should be prescribed for MINS, and that post-discharge specialist follow-up is warranted. However, opinions regarding the role of cardiac imaging varied.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it